Parliamentary Cost Comparisons

Viscount Tenby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the annual cost of maintaining the European Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, including:
	(a) salaries, pensions, travelling allowances, secretarial expenses and other expenses for Members;
	(b) salaries, allowances and pensions and other costs of support staff;
	(c) accommodation, including rent, operating costs and security; and
	(d) all other administrative costs such as stationery, office equipment, publications, payments to parliamentary bodies and other relevant outgoings;
	and whether they will indicate the per capita cost per Member as well as the average number of sitting days for each institution for 1999-2000 and the previous four years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information for the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 was given in my Answer of 22 July 1999 (WA 129-130). The information for 1999-2000 is as follows:
	
		
			 Total Costs 1999-2000 £ million 
			 House of Lords 45.3 
			 House of Commons(1) 263.7 
			 European Parliament(2) 610 
			 of which cost to UK is 102.7 
			  
			 Per capita cost per member 1999-2000 £'000 
			 House of Lords(3) 37 
			 House of Commons(4) 400 
			 European Parliament(5) 974 
			  
			 Number of sitting days 1999-2000 
			 House of Lords 158 
			 House of Commons 157 
			 European Parliament(6) 60 
		
	
	Notes:
	(1) Based on the calendar year and average £/eu exchange rate. The cost to the UK is derived from the UK's financing share after abatement.
	(2) Per capita costs based on number of Peers eligible to sit in the House of Lords at the beginning of the year.
	(3) The number of European Parliament seats increased from 518 to 567 on June 1994 and has increased since to its present total of 626.
	(4) It is not possible to give an exact figure for the number of European Parliament sittings. The European Parliament generally holds a five-day plenary session every month but there have been occasions when these plenary sessions have been over a longer period.
	(5) Total cost of the House of Commons includes capital costs in respect of new Parliamentary buildings.
	(6) Per capita costs based on 659 Members, increased from 652 at the 1997 General Election.

Company Acquisitions, UK and France

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the cumulative value of acquisitions of British companies by French companies which were announced or consummated between 1 January 2000 and 23 June 2000; and what was the corresponding cumulative value of acquisitions of French companies by British companies during the same period.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter to Lord Pearson of Rannoch from the National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics, Mr Len Cook, dated 5 July 2000.
	As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the value of acquisitions of British companies by French companies and French companies by British companies announced or consummated between 1 January 2000 and 23 June 2000.
	The latest available information from the inquiry into acquisitions and mergers is for deals completed during the first quarter of 2000. Figures are not produced for deals announced but not completed in the period covered. Acquisitions of French companies by British companies were valued at £0.2 billion and acquisitions of British companies by French companies were £1.1 billion. The quarterly figure is heavily influenced by variations in small numbers of very large deals.

BSE in France

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Given the increased identification of BSE cases in France, whether they are taking steps to protect the public from exposure to infected material coming from Europe.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government continue to monitor the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in France, as well as in other European Union member states and in third countries. Legislation has been in place for some years to protect British consumers from the risks of BSE infected material from any source.
	All beef produced within the EU must be produced in accordance with the relevant European Directive, 64/433/EEC. The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office carries out regular inspection visits to all member states to ensure compliance. Furthermore, United Kingdom authorities are entitled to carry out random spot checks on consignments of beef from other member states, at their destinations, to confirm compliance.
	In addition, since 1 January 1998 the UK has had national legislation which prohibits the import of specified risk materials (SRM) (except for technical uses such as bone china) from all countries, including the rest of the EU. This legislation requires imports of certain animal products to be accompanied by official veterinary certification that the products do not contain, and were not derived from, SRM. These controls are enforced each week by inspections of randomly selected consignments of imported meat from other member states. The results of these checks are published monthly in the Government's BSE Enforcement Bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library.
	Since 1996, British law has provided a further measure of protection against the risks of BSE infection through the prohibition on the sale of beef from cattle aged over 30 months at slaughter. This prohibition applies to both home produced and imported supplies of beef. The only exceptions to this ban are for specialist grass reared herds in Britain (which can be slaughtered for human consumption at up to 42 months of age), and for meat from 14 non-EU countries which have traditionally supplied the UK, and which have no history of BSE. This legislation is enforced by the Meat Hygiene Service in licensed meat premises, and by local authorities at other points in the supply chain.
	From 1 October 2000, EU-wide requirements for the removal of SRM will apply in all member states, following adoption by the European Commission on 29 June 2000 of a Decision on SRM controls.

Gas and Electricity Industries: Consumer Representation

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made in developing the future regulatory and consumer representation arrangements for the gas and electricity industries.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Utilities Bill currently before Parliament will result in substantial benefits to consumers. In order to provide a sound basis for the implementation of those aspects of the new legislation for which it will have responsibility, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets plans to undertake preparatory work right away. The Department of Trade and Industry also needs to undertake some preparatory work on appointments to the new Gas and Electricity Markets Authority and Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, which will be established once the Utilities Bill gets Royal Assent. However, whilst candidates designate will be identified by the recruitment process, no appointments will be made until the Utilities Bill has received Royal Assent.
	Parliamentary approval to these activities will be sought in Estimates for the OFGEM Vote (Class IX, Vote 10) and DTI Vote (Class IX, Vote 1). Pending that approval, urgent preparatory expenditure estimated at £1 million for OFGEM and £0.3 million for DTI will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

Bevin Boys

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consideration they have given to the presentation of the National Service Medal to those Bevin Boys who were conscripted to serve in the coal mines during the 1939-45 war.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: A public memorial to all those who served during the 1939-1945 war on the Home Front, including those who were conscripted to serve in the coal mines, was unveiled by the Queen in a service of commemoration at Coventry Cathedral on 3 March 2000.
	The National Service Medal is not an official award. It is produced for sale by a commercial company.

Electricity Generators: Licence Exemptions

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have reached conclusions following the consultation on proposals to amend the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1997.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In order to reduce the regulatory burden on generators which are not subject to central despatch at present, the Government are proposing to make changes to the de minimis level above which a generation licence is required. Subject to final comments, it is proposed to lay an order to exempt for a period of one year all generators which are not capable of exporting more than 100 MW to the total system and which have energised connections on the date of the order coming into force. Additionally a small number of stations which exceed this limit but are not presently subject to central despatch will be included within this exempt class.
	The change will allow generators which are currently connected to public network and do not presently have to submit to central despatch the freedom to aggregate their output with suppliers when the New Electricity Trading Arrangements come into effect. This will be of particular help to those plants which do not have predictable or flexible output including renewables and CHP operators.
	The Government propose to lay the order in August. It will come into force before the commencement of NETA trading in the autumn.
	This order will be an interim arrangement pending the coming into force of new legislation and will apply in England and Wales. During this interim period, generators who wish to connect new plant capable of exporting between 50-100 MW or who plan to increase the size of their plant so that it comes within this category may apply to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for an individual exemption. In deciding whether or not to grant and in determining the date of the granting of such exemptions, the department will take into account the views of interested parties, including those of OFGEM and the relevant transmission and distribution network operators.
	It is the Government's intention within the coming year to lay a further, final order replacing this interim order. Further orders will cover the de minimis rules to govern exemptions from the need for licences to generate, supply and distribute electricity.
	The generation exemptions covering plant of this size will be subject to periodic review. It is the Government's present intention that they will be reviewed approximately every three years.
	The Government intend to consult further on possible changes to the rules governing supply exemptions. These changes, which I would propose to bring into effect within the coming year, would help small and industrial on-site generators, including renewable and CHP operators to serve their customers more effectively.
	The Government are therefore seeking views on a proposal to allow suppliers who generate electricity themselves to supply an aggregate of up to 5MW of power, of which 2.5MW may be supplied to domestic customers. The class would be required to supply at prices not exceeding those set out in the order, and would be required to alert customers being recruited as to their status as exempt suppliers.
	The Government also wishes to hear views on a proposal to allow generators which supply a qualifying group of customers on the same site as the generator to supply the same group of customers at remote sites. This latter class would be required to demonstrate that at least one-third of the electricity supplied to the qualifying group went to on-site premises.

NMEC: Chairman

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton of 8 June (WA 176) whether, in view of his responsibility for appointing board members of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), he will publish in the Official Report any correspondence between himself and the outgoing and incoming chairman of NMEC, Mr Bob Ayling and Mr David Quarmby.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: While I am responsible for appointing individual members to the board of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), the decision to appoint the chairman rests with the board itself. There is no correspondence between myself and Bob Ayling on the Board's decision to select David Quarmby, nor have I had any other correspondence with David Quarmby on this subject.

Environment Council, 22 June

Baroness Gale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the Environment Council held in Luxembourg on 22 June.

Lord Whitty: My right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment represented the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 22 June 2000, accompanied by Sarah Boyack, Scottish Executive Minister for Environment and Transport. Political agreement was reached on two proposals, along with one set of Council Conclusions.
	Agreement was reached on two important air quality measures which will deliver significant reductions in transboundary pollutants, contributing to problems of acidification and ground level ozone (summer-time smog) throughout the European Union. The first, the National Emissions Ceilings Directive, sets national emission ceilings for 2010 on four air pollutants (sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and ammonia). We agreed to ceilings of 585, 1167, 1200 and 297 thousand tonnes respectively for each of the pollutants. A second common position, on an amendment of the 1988 Large Combustion Plants Directive, sets stricter limit values for emissions of oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and dust from new plant. For existing (pre-1988) plant, limit values will need to be applied from 2008, or equivalent overall reductions achieved through a National Emissions Plan. However, plant with less than 20,000 hours operating life remaining on 1 January 2008 may be exempted. This agreement will see a reduction in acidifying emissions, whilst flexibility for industry, particularly the power sector, is safeguarded.
	In advance of the Sixth Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, due to take place at The Hague in November, Council Conclusions were agreed setting out the EU position on some of the key issues. Ministers agreed that eligibility for the Clean Development Mechanism should be on the basis of a positive list of safe environmentally sound projects, which excluded nuclear, and that the use of carbon sinks such as forests should not be extended, unless concerns about their scale, scientific and other uncertainties were addressed. The Conclusions also welcomed a Commission communication on a proposed European Climate Change Programme, and its Green Paper on Emissions Trading.
	The Presidency gave brief progress reports on proposals to promote sustainable urban development and to establish a priority list of dangerous substances of European significance whose release to the aquatic environment should be controlled. The Presidency also summarised the environmental legislation adopted under the co-decision procedure during the last six months, and highlighted the increasing importance of this procedure in the Presidency's work. Final outcomes were agreed on six dossiers: a Decision to monitor the CO2 emissions from new passenger cars; a regulation controlling substances that deplete the ozone layer; a directive amending Directive 74/150/EEC limiting gaseous and particulate pollutants by agricultural tractors; a Directive limiting noise emission by equipment used outdoors; a directive on end of life vehicles; and the third EU LIFE Regulation.
	The Commission reported on the progress of a new Community strategy for chemicals, expected by the end of 2000, and a draft new framework for environmental state aids on which there was a brief exchange of views between member states. The Commission also gave a report on the progress towards completing risk assessments for brominated flame retardants, based on work carried out by the UK.
	The Commission presented two recently published proposals; one for a directive on renewable energy, the other for a directive ensuring proper treatment and disposal of waste from electrical and electronic equipment. Presentations were also given to Council on forthcoming proposals to integrate environmental consideration into public procurement rules and to update the 1991 directive on batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substances.
	On a Danish point under Any Other Business, the Commission noted that it would be meeting an umbrella grouping of NGOs on 12 July to discuss their participation in the EU standardisation process. The Council also noted an Austrian intervention calling for a ban of tributyltin (TBT) in products with which human beings come into contact, following traces of TBT and other organotin compounds being found in nappies in Germany.

Greater London Authority: Rejected Ballot Papers

Lord Lipsey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	(a) what percentage of ballot papers in the London elections this May were not fully completed; and
	(b) of those not fully completed, what percentage were not complete because no votes were cast for Assembly members, and what percentage were spoiled.

Lord Whitty: The Greater London Authority Elections (No 2) Rules 2000 required returning officers to classify ballot papers which must be rejected under one of the following heads:
	(a) voter identifiable,
	(b) more than one vote cast, and
	(c) vote unmarked or void for uncertainty.
	Amongst the rejected ballot papers in the three elections, the following percentages were categorised as voter identity identifiable, voting for more than one candidate and void for uncertainty or blank:
	
		
			  (a) voter identifiable (b) multi-vote (c) Uncertain or unmarked 
			 Mayor first preference: 0.04% 1.4% 0.7% 
			 Mayor second  preference 0.04% 0.06% 17.0% 
			 London Member  election 0.03% 0.8% 4.2% 
			 Constituency Member  election 0.03% 0.2% 9.0% 
		
	
	Ballot papers which were unmarked or "not fully completed" would be included in those under head (c) as 'uncertain or unmarked'. Ballot papers with a mark on them, but where the voters' intentions were uncertain, were adjudicated by returning officers and also categorised as 'uncertain or unmarked'. Whilst under the Election Rules, both types of ballot paper are aggregated together as one category, it is clear from the returning officers' observations that a high proportion of the papers categorised as "uncertain or unmarked" were in fact blank.

Mobile Concrete Pump Vehicle Licence Cost

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the appropriate vehicle excise duty rate for a concrete pumping machine based on a 32 ton eight-wheel tipper truck chassis:
	(a) before the case R v Reilly Concrete Pumping; and
	(b) after the case R v Reilly Concrete Pumping.

Lord Whitty: The Appeal Court ruled in the case of R v Reilly Concrete Pumping that a mobile concrete pump should be taxed as a goods vehicle rather than a mobile crane. A mobile crane based on four-axle chassis with a maximum operating weight of 32 tonnes would pay £165 in VED. As a result of the Appeal Court ruling, a concrete pumping machine based on a similar chassis would pay an annual rate of £4,400.

Jubilee Line

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied with London Transport's running of the Jubilee Line; and whether the number of interruptions to service and escalator breakdowns on a line with huge capital investment indicates management deficiencies.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Jubilee Line operational matters are the responsibility of London Underground Limited.
	Opening the Jubilee Line extension in 1999 (integrating existing and new infrastructure) naturally posed a number of challenges, and service on the line suffered considerable teething troubles. However it has since then been improving consistently and I understand from LUL that the extended Jubilee Line is now amongst the best-performing of Underground lines. There are over 120 escalators on the line. One has been out of service at St John's Wood and one at London Bridge. The former is now back in service and the latter is being dealt with by the manufacturer. There have also been one or two minor escalator stoppages elsewhere, quickly resolved.
	LUL management has addressed the extended line's problems, and has instituted a programme of further work to continue improving its performance, in particular to increase reliability and reduce delays.

Transport for London: Board Membership

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why Members of Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and Members of the House of Lords are not allowed to be board members of Transport for London.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Government White Paper "A Mayor and an Assembly for London" said:
	"Board members [of Transport for London] will be drawn from those with a wide range of relevant experience . . . Transport for London's Board will not include political representatives, whether local or national. It will be the role of the Mayor to provide political and strategic direction. Transport for London will be accountable via the GLA to the London-wide electorate."
	Paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is designed to fulfil this policy.
	The House of Lords looked at this provision at Committee stage of the Bill on 1 July when the House discussed amendments put forward by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Brabazon (Hansard, cols. 475-478).

Transport Council, 26 June

Baroness Pitkeathley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the Transport Council held in Luxembourg on 26 June.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Transport Council met in Luxembourg on 26 June. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr Hill) represented the United Kingdom.
	At the opening of the Council, the Netherlands made a statement expressing regret at the recent incident at Dover and stressed the need for EU action on traffic in human beings. The UK welcomed and endorsed the Dutch statement.
	The Council debated a draft directive on interoperability of the conventional rail network. The only outstanding issue was the UK and Spain's request that derogations to allow the retention of existing track or loading gauges would be automatic rather than requiring Commission approval. We are pleased to say that, following the debate, a revised text was agreed which allows the automatic derogation we had been seeking and enabled the Council to agree a Common Position.
	The Council debated proposals arising from the loss of the oil tanker "Erika" (the "Erika 1" package). These are revised directives on ship inspection organisations and on port state control of shipping; and a new regulation on accelerating the introduction of double hulls in oil tankers. The Council reached political agreement on the first of these, which would give the Commission responsibility for recognising member states' appointed ship inspection organisations. The Commission gave a progress report on the port state control proposal. There was a debate on double-hulled tankers, during which the UK noted the need for a proper economic and regulatory impact assessment. The UK agreed with the Commission and a number of member states that IMO action at global level would be preferable, but that otherwise EU legislation would be acceptable. These issues will be debated again at the October Council. The Council agreed Conclusions, stating that further progress should be made towards the "Erika 2" package, foreseen at the Feira European Council. France stated that Erika 2 would be a priority of its Presidency.
	There was a further progress report from the Commission on the Galileo satellite navigation project. The Commission said it would submit a final report on the definition phase and an economic analysis in time for the December Council, at which a final decision would have to be made on whether to go ahead with the project. At the October Council, there would be an orientation debate on structure and funding. The UK joined other member states in stressing the need for full cost benefit analysis and for private sector funding to make the project viable. Conclusions were agreed, urging that the Council be provided with sufficient information early in the autumn to allow it to take a decision on Galileo's future.
	The Commission gave a further presentation of its Communication on air passenger rights, underlining the need for progress with legislation or voluntary action in various areas of passenger protection, including the setting of minimum contract requirements for ticket purchase. Further work will be done to prepare for a discussion at the October Council.
	The Commission gave its view of progress on work to create common EU structures for air traffic management (ATM). This might include the establishment of bodies to regulate European ATM. The Commission noted that separation of provision and regulation of ATM services was vital to implement the conclusions of the European Councils at Lisbon and Feira.
	The Council agreed that the Commission proposals on cabin crew qualifications in civil aviation should be reexamined in the light of the recent proposal to transpose standards drawn up by the Joint Aviation Authorities into Community law.
	The Presidency presented a paper describing recent discussions on the establishment of a European aviation safety authority (EASA). The point at issue is whether the Commission should work up detailed proposals for an EU agency, rather than an international organisation. The Presidency presented a paper which analysed whether an EU agency could effectively promote air safety across Europe. The UK affirmed its openness to the idea of an EU agency, while making it clear that such an Agency would have to have sufficient power to take safety decisions effectively, involve member states and national safety regulators fully in its work, and involve non-EU states as fully as possible. It should not initially cover safety of airports or air traffic management. The Council invited the Commission to make a formal proposal for an EU agency.
	The Council also discussed the Transatlantic Common Aviation Area (TCAA). The Commission is seeking a mandate allowing it to negotiate a TCAA agreement with the US on behalf of the EU. The UK has on previous occasions made clear that it gives priority to its bilateral negotiations with the US, which are continuing. Technical work on the likely shape of a Commission mandate has been taking place, and the UK has been participating in that. The Presidency concluded that the Council was satisfied with the technical work, and asked for further work to be done by COREPER, to allow a decision on the mandate to be taken in December.
	The Commission reported on developments in the area of aviation noise standards. They noted the good progress in defining new standards within the ICAO CAEP process.
	The Council agreed a wide-ranging resolution on road safety, following the Commission Communication presented to the March Council. Among areas identified for legislative action are: further development of the European new vehicles crash testing programme (EuroNCAP), use of speed limiters on larger vehicles, higher levels of seatbelt and child restraint usage, safer car fronts, and targeting of accident blackspots. The Resolution also refers to the Commission's intention to bring forward a recommendation for member states to introduce a maximum blood alcohol level of 0.5 milligrams per millilitre.
	Two road transport issues were debated: a proposed resolution on transit quotas ("ecopoints") for lorries passing through Austria; and a proposal on the allocation of Swiss transit permits for heavy lorries. The form concerns a proposal to reduce the ecopoint quotas of five member states, a legal requirement under the terms of Austria's Act of Accession. The member states affected (which do not include the UK) expressed their opposition to this measure and the Presidency instructed COREPER to re-examine the proposal. The Commission noted that, unless an alternative proposal emerges and is agreed upon, the Commission Regulation will automatically come into effect on 20 September. The Commission also introduced its amended proposal for the distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles travelling in Switzerland. The permit allocations for individual member states were in the process of being revised in the light of recently completed analyses of trade and traffic statistics in the Alpine region. The Presidency asked for further work to be done by COREPER to prepare for decision at the October Council.
	Under other business the Commission presented its new "Communication on safer and more competitive quality road transport in the Community", covering such issues as working and driving time for lorry drivers, conditions for employment of non-EU hauliers, and driver training. This will be a priority issue for debate during the French presidency.

Firearms Certificates

The Earl of Shrewsbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In view of the fact that some police forces are currently taking several weeks to renew firearms and shotgun certificates, whether chief officers should be obliged to provide certificate holders with written assurance that in the event of the expiry of their current certificates before renewal they will not be liable for prosecution should they continue to hold firearms (listed on their certificate) without a renewed certificate.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The decision as to whether or not to issue written advice in these circumstances is a matter for the discretion of the chief officers of police of the area concerned.
	We understand that it has been the established practice of many police forces not to prosecute legitimate gun owners whose certificates expire while being renewed by the police. Any criminal proceedings in such cases would be conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service, which may properly discontinue proceedings on the grounds that these are not in the public interest.

Army Museums: Visitor Numbers

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For the last convenient 12-month period, how many people: (a) visited the National Army Museum at Chelsea; and (b) paid to visit the National Army Museum's vehicles on display at the Museum of Army Transport at Beverley.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: During the last financial year the total number of visitors to the National Army Museum was 114,482. The museum does not charge for entrance.
	It is understood that during year 1999-2000, there was a total of 30,000 paying visitors to the National Army Museum's vehicles on display at the Museum of Army Transport.